1. “Reflective Leadership Practices” -Workshop Summary
This August 2011 the CP Yen Foundation hosted the workshop “Beyond Immunity to Change:
reflective leadership practices for breaking through individual and group resistance to change”,
delivered by Joey Chan, founder of Birdview Consulting and the first promoter and consultant of
learning organization in Hong Kong. This month’s Dialogue Newsletter is based on the handbook
of his workshop and an article on “Immunity to Change” published in the Harvard Business review
December 2001 issue.
(Mental Model)
‧
Mental models determine our view of the world. They are deeply rooted at the heart of our
assumptions, stories and images of the world and act like a delicate piece of glass subtly filtering
our vision. According to Joey Chan, the core task of Reflective Leadership is to enable the
practitioner to more clearly see this glass before one’s eyes; and to create a more appropriate and
effective management of these mental models. Peter Senge comments in The Fifth Discipline that
“the problems with mental models lie not in whether they are right or wrong - by definition, all
models are simplifications. The problems with mental models arise when they become implicit -
when they exist below the level of our awareness.”
Robert Kegan Lisa Lahey
Immunity to Change
Organizational psychologists Dr. Robert Kegan and Dr. Lisa Lahey observed an organizational
mental model, which similarly acts to preserve the status quo through individual and groups
behaviors that work against their own change goals; they call this model “immunity to change.”
“Change immunity” is a clever self-protection deeply rooted in our mental models. Unless leaders
understand how “change immunity” is generated, behaves, and how to transform them, real change
1

2. in an organization will not be possible.
(Four column exercise for change)
Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey
In this workshop “Beyond Immunity to Change”, Joey Chan introduced the “four column exercise
for change” as a tool for leaders to recognize the kind of “change immunity” occurring the
developmental levels of one’s self and our organizations. The framework behind this tool was
developed following many years of research by the Harvard Business School and the School of
Social Psychology and can be a useful tool for cultivating learning organizations.
(coaching)
We began the workshop by applying the framework to oneself. With the help of peer coaching, we
gradually revealed the deeply rooted mental models which intervene in the changes we desire.
Only a sheet of paper is needed for the four steps of this reflective journey, noted below:
(1)
(2) :
(internal commitment)
,
Warm-up:
1. Write down a list of difficult issues you are currently facing on which you’d like to make
improvements.
2. Select one issue item with the following characteristics:
a. This issue is very important to me and I have internal commitment to it.
b. I can affect change, influence or directly control it,.
c. I am the most important source of change in this issue.
/ : ……
 ( )
( )
 : → ( )
( ,2001 12 )
First Column: The goal/result you want to change: Publicly declare your commitment, “I am
committed to....”
 Shift statements of complaint into positive statements of creativity (in the spirit of Appreciative
Inquiry): name the change you want to see (your vision).
Case: Tom’s issue: “Subordinates deliberately isolate me from important progress” (case source:
2

3. Harvard Business Review, December, 2001 issue)
/


(Sisyphus)
 :( ) , ( )
( )
Second Column: List what you do (or not do) which prevents your commitment from being
realized.
 Describe your behavior objectively (don’t personalize it).
 Clearly see your behaviors that undermine your commitment which you named in column one.
 Case: (Tom) “I never raise questions nor ask to get involved in sensitive matters (not do); I get
angry at my employees when they give me bad news (do).”
/ ( Competing commitment)
 worry Box ( ?)
 :( )
Column Three: Potential clash of commitments/beliefs (competing commitment)
 First find out your own concerns through a “worry box” (Which concerns cause you to do
what you have listed in Column two)
 Case: (Tom) “if I were tranquil and listened openly and evenly to all types of information, I’m
afraid I’d hear a problem which I can’t resolve.”
:

/

 ( )
 :( )
Competing commitments
 For self-protection or for personal benefit, a commitment should not be regarded as a
weakness, because it simply represents a form of self-protection. This explains why we have
the second column - the behavior of not doing.
 “In the beginning, people will shout their commitments from roof tops that they are happy to
step up to this noble goal, but the conflicting commitments are quite personal and reflect one’s
competing commitments. For example, one may be committed to presenting a certain image
of oneself to others, however this commitment may counter the one goals one to act
otherwise.”
 This competing commitment is analogous to our inner child: tied up so that we cannot move
forward toward our goals. Don’t blame the child, just affirm him, appreciate him and have a
dialogue with him to accept him unconditionally.
 Case: (Tom) “I try not to understand things that I cannot control.”
3

4. ( My Big Assumption)

? ? XX
 U
(source)

 :( )
Column Four: My Big Assumption
 My big assumption is about my profound conviction in myself and the world around me; it
leads to the questions “who am I?” and “What do I stand for?” The process of exploring these
questions is not always comfortable, yet breakthrough shifts are achieved by looking closely at
the assumptions you hold. Previous assumptions may have been incomplete or incorrect, yet
don’t blame yourself harshly for them. Simply recognizing that “I have assumptions” and not
“I simply AM my assumptions” can be transformative.
 With “big assumptions” the deeper you dig the greater the groundbreaking change. Such is the
case with the “U Theory” where the “bottom of the U” nexus of change occurs at one’s deepest
“source” level.
 Revealing an important assumption may not be immediately obvious. As soon as we have the
opportunity to challenge an assumption and adjust our behavior, we can still find even more
effective ways of doing it differently.
 Case: “I guess I (Tom) am a leader, I should be able to solve all problems, and that if I cannot
handle the problems I would be perceived as incompetent.”
S.M.A. R.T
1. Small &Safe
2. Mediocre
3. Achievable
4. Research
5. Test


Take S.M.A.R.T. Actions
1. Small & Safe: small and safe, David and Goliath grace.
2. Mediocre: moderate, can be done.
3. Achievable
4. Research: Apply an inquiring mind to accumulate small successes. After accumulating many
small successes have a good conversation with your own assumptions.
5. Test how to continue taking small steps, what are the risks, what different things can you accept?
How to support conflicting commitments while minimizing public commitments to act.
 Your behavior is important, not only the outcomes.
 When you view yourself from four dimensions, a change process occurs.
4

5. I( ) IT
Reflective capacity and behaviors
Mental Models
WE ( ) ITS
Office, environmental change
Community, coaches, partners
Theory U . ,→ →
(Presencing)
U
U
JOEY
Change can be divided into two categories: intellectual change and behavior change.
Intellectual change is easier than behavior change because behavior requires changes in our mental
models. This is not easy because humans have defense mechanisms which try to maintain stability
by defending our status quo. The Four Column Practice helps one to discuss latent conflicting
commitments and big assumptions. This process is similar to Theory U where the left side of the U
involves suspending our old mental models, observing a new world around us, letting go of our “big
assumptions” and finally connecting with our authentic self (presencing). The Four column and
Theory U change processes are tools for individual and organizational change. The workshop
participants expressed satisfaction and appreciation for the instructor, Mr. Joey Chan’s, selfless
passion The participants generous sharing created an environment of mutual learning and
contribution.
5